1 ... S ee Te x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 0 8 - 2 8 9 - CV
EST ATE OF M I TCHEL LVA N M ET ER, DE CE AS E D

----- ----- --

FR O M PROBATE CO URT NO . 2 OF TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I n t hr ee i ssues, M ar k V an M et erappeal s f r om t he pr obate court ’ s or der
r em ovi ng hi m as adm i ni st r at oroft he est at e ofM i t chel l V an M et er . Because w e h o l d tha t t h e p rob a te c o u rth a d ca u se to re m o v e M a rk, w e affi rm the p rob a te c o u rt’s o rd e r. M i tc h e l l d i e d i n te s ta te o n J u l y4 , 2 0 0 7 . C o d yV a n M e te r i s M i tc h e l l ’s
o n l yc h i l d . M a rki s M i tc h e l l ’s b ro th e r.2 ... S ee 50 U . S . C . A . app. § § 50 1– 96 ( 19 90 & S upp . 20 08 ) , now cal l ed

th e S e rvi c e m e m b e rs C i v i l R e l i e f A c t. 2 C o d yi s a s e rv i c e m e m b e r i n th e U n i te d S ta te s N a v y . A fte r h i s fa th e r’s d e a th , C o d yw a s d e p l o y e d o v e rs e a s . A fte r C o d y ’s d e p l o y m e n t , o n F e b ru a ry 1 1 , 2 0 0 8 , M a rkfi l e d h i s a p p l i c a ti o n fo r l e tte rs o f a d m i n i s tra ti o n fo r M i tc h e l l ’s
es t at e. Cody di d nots i gn a de cl i nat i on t o s erve. Af t erhol di ng a he ari ng on M ar k’ s appl i c a ti on on M ar ch 2 4, 20 08 , t he pr obate courtsi gned an or der g ra n ti n g a d m i n i s tra ti o n o f th e e s ta te a n d a p p o i n ti n g M a rka s th e a d m i n i s tra to r. N o r ec or d w asm adeoft he hea r i ng. O n A p ri l 1 4 , 2 0 0 8 , M a rkh a d a l e tte r d e l i v e re d to T ra c yO l s e n , C o d y ’s
m ot he ra nd M i t c he l l ’ s e x- w i f e , d e m a nd i ng p a ym e nto fr e nt . On Apr i l 18, 2008 , C ody f i l ed an em er gen cy m ot i on f or st ay and su sp ens i on of t he adm i ni st r at i on oft he est at e dur i ng hi s dep l o y m e n t . I n t he em er gency m ot i on, C ody al l eged t hat M ar k di d not pr ovi de hi m w i t h not i ceofM ar k’ s app l i ca t i on f orap poi nt m ent asad m i ni st r at ororoft he hea r i ng on t he app l i ca t i on. He r eq ue sted t he pr ot ec t i onsaf f or ded s ervi cem em ber s on acti ve dut y, i ncl udi ng a s t ay and
s u s p e n s i o n o f th e a d m i n i s tra ti o n o f th e e s ta te u n d e rt h e S o l d i e rs a n d S a i l o rs R e l i e f A c t. 2C ody al so sought t o di schar ge M ar k as adm i ni st r at orand r equest ed
an aw ar d ofcost s, expenses, and at t or ney’ s f ees.3

O n A pr i l 24 , 20 08 , t he pr obate courthel d a hear i ng on C ody’ s em er gency m ot i on. A tt he h ear i ng, t he cour tnot ed t hatt he r ecor d di d not i ncl ude a d e c l i n a ti o n to s e rve fr o m C o d yan d tha t h i s c o u rts taff h a d atta c h e d a n o te to M a rk ’s a p p l i c a ti o n th a t s a i d , “[D ]e c l i n a ti o n fo r 2 1 -y e a r-o l d ? ” T h e p ro b a te c o u rt
w e n to n t o s a yt h a ta l t h o u g h t h e c o u rth a d n o re c o lle c t io n o ft h e h e a r in g , “ it
w oul d se em t o [ t he cou rt ] t hats om et hi ng w asdi sc us se d dur i ng t he cr ea t i on of t h is a d m in is t r a t io n t h a tw o u ld h a v e le d t h is C o u rt t o b e lie v e t h a t [C o d y ] w a s in f avo rofi t , be ca us e o t herw i se , w e w oul d ha ve r equ i r ed a w r i t t en dec l i nat i on bef or e w e w oul d— he has pr i or i t y. ” The courtc onti nued , “[ S ] om et hi ng m ust ha ve be e n s a i d du r i ng t ha t he a r i ng t ha t ga ve t hi s Cou rt t he i m pr essi on t hat [ C ody] w ant ed [ M ar k] t o be appo i nt ed ori tw oul dn’ thave h a ppen ed. ” Just bef or e r ul i ng on Cody’ s m ot i on, t he pr oba t e c ourtt ol d M ar k’ s att or ney , “ You kno w , s i r , t hatw e’ d ne verdo s om et hi ng l i ke t hi s i fyou had n’ t l ed us t o be l i eve th a t th i s w a s a n a g re e d s i tu a ti o n .” T h e c o u rt fu rth e r to l d M a rk ’s a tto rn e y , “I’m not accusi ng yo u off r aud, butI ’ m accusi ng you ofcom i ng r i ght up t o t he edge” and t hat “[ i ] t i s absol ut el y w r i t t en i n st one i n t he Pr obate C ode t hat[ C ody] has t he . . . pr i or i t y, an d s om eho w oran ot her , dur i ng t hathe ar i ng, you - al l l ed m e t o bel i e ve t ha t t hi s w a s a gr e e d or I gu a r a nt e e yo u i t w ou l d’ ve ne verbeen d o n e . ” H e c o n c lu d e d b ys a y in g , “ A n d t h e id e a t h a ty o u d id n ’th a v e h is p e r mi s s i o n t o d o t h i s , i n myo p i n i o n — l i k e I s a i d , i tc o me s c l o s e t o f r a u d . ” At3 ... W al ker v. W al ker, 152 S . W . 3d 220, 223 ( Tex. A pp. — D al l as2005 , no p e t.); E x e c u to r so f T a rtt ’sE s ta tev. Ha r

p o ld, 531 S. W . 2d 696 , 698 ( Tex. Ci v. A p p .— H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 1 9 7 6 , w ri t re f’d n .r.e .); Wybrants v. Lehm an , 307 S .W .2 d 3 3 9 , 3 4 1 (T e x . C i v . A p p .— E a s tl a n d 1 9 5 7 , w ri t re f’d n .r.e .); see al so Ho wa rd v. Ben n e tt, 13 Tex. 30 9, 18 55 W L 47 78 , at * 3– 4 ( 18 55 ) ( noti ng t hat pr oba t e c ourtha d j ur i sd i ct i on t o r em ove ad m i ns t r at r i x a nd ap poi nts ucc es so r w h e re e s ta te h a d n o t b e e n c l o s e d ). 4 no poi nti n t heh e a r i ng d i d M a r ko rh i s a t t or ne y de nyt ha tt hec ou rth a d been
m i sl ed. T h e p r o b a t e c o u rt s ig n e d a n o r d e r g r a n t in g C o d y ’s e m e r g e n c ym o t io n “ in it s e n t ir e t y ,” re v o k e d a n d w it h d r e w t h e le t t e r s o fa d m in is t r a t io n p r e v io u s ly gr ant ed t o M ar k, and or der ed M ar k t o pay C ody’ s att or ney ’ s f ee s i n t he am ount o f $ 2 ,2 6 9 .0 0 . M a rkfi l e d a m o ti o n fo r n e w tri a l , a n d , a fte r th e p ro b a te c o u rt d e n ie d t h e m o t io n , h e f ile d t h is a p p e a l. I n hi s f i r sti ssue, M a rk a rgu es t hatt he or derdi schar gi ng hi m as a d m in is t r a t o rw a s s ig n e d o u t s id e t h e p r o b a t e c o u rt ’s p le n a r y p o w e rb e c a u s e it
w a s s i g n e d th i rty -o n e d a y s a fte r th e c o u rt g ra n te d M a rk ’s a p p l i c a ti o n fo r l e tte rs ofadm i ni st r at i on. W e di sagr ee. R egar dl ess of w het her t he pr obate courthad pl ena r y po w ert o m odi f y or cor r ec t t he or derap poi nt i ng M ar k, t he cou rtha d t he pow ert o r em ov e hi m w hi l e t he es t at e w aspe ndi ng. A pr oba t e c ourtr et ai ns ju r is d ic t io n o v e ra n e s t a t e u n t il t h e e s t a t e is c lo s e d a n d t h e a d m in is t r a t o ris di sc har ged . 3Thu s, t he pr obate courthad j u ri sd i ct i on t o i ssue an or der4 ... See, e. g. , Tex. Pr ob. Code Ann. § 222 ( V er non 2003) ( pr ovi di ng f or

t he r em oval ofan adm i ni st r at orand not i ncl ud i n g a n yti m e l i m i tf ordoi ng so w h i l e th e e s ta te i s b e i n g a d m i n i s te re d ).

5 ... See i

d. §§ 2 20( b) , 222. 6 ... S ee Pub . U ti

l. Com m ’

n of Tex. v. Cof

er, 7 54 S. W . 2d 121, 124 ( Tex. 1 9 8 8 ) ( r e c o g n iz in g t h a t“ a c o u rth a s in h e r e n tp o w e r s itm a yc a ll u p o n t o a id in t he exer ci seofi t s j ur i sd i ct i on, i n t he adm i ni st r at i on ofj us t i ce , an d in p res erva ti

o no f its i

n dep en den c ean d

i n tegrity ” ) (e m p h a s i s a d d e d ). 5 pe rt a i ni ng t o t he e s t a t e . W e ha ve f ou nd no t i m e l i m i t a t i on f or r e m ov a l ofan adm i ni st r at ordur i ng t he pend e n c yo f a n est at e. 4W e t her ef or e h ol d t hatt he p rob a te c o u rth a d j u ri sd i c ti o n to rem o v e M a rk a s a d m i n i strato r w h e n the es tate had no tbeen cl osed. W e over r ul e M ar k’ s f i r sti ssue. I n hi s se con d i ss ue, M ar k argu es t hata cou rtca nnotr em ove t he
a d m i n i s t r a t o ro fa n e s t a t e w i t h o u t( 1) s o m e e v i d e n c e t h a tt h e a d m i ni st r at or eng age d i n s om e a ctorf ai l ed t o pe r f or m s om e a ctw hi ch w ou l d w ar r ant
r em ova l unde rs ec t i on 222 oft he Texa s Pr oba t e Code or( 2) an ap pl i ca t i on f or l ett er s ofad m i ni st r at i on byonew ho ha s a p r i orri gh tunde rs ec t i on 220( b) of t he pr obate code. 5 H e c o n t e n d s t h a ts e c t io n s 2 2 0 a n d 2 2 2 a r e t h e o n ly st at utory prov i si onsunde rw hi ch a c ourtm ay r em ove an ad m i ni st r at or . But
court s i n t hi s st at e have i nher entpow er s i n addi t i on t o t hose pow er s conf er r ed upo n th e m b yst at ut e. 6U n d e r se c ti o n 7 7 o f t h e p rob a te c o d e , th e p rob a te7 ... S ee Tex. Pr ob. C ode A nn. § 77( e) ( r equ i r i ng l ett er s ofad m i ni st r at i on

t o be g r an t ed t o “ t he nex tofki n oft he dec ea se d, t he nea r es ti n or derof d e s c e n t fi rs t, a n d s o o n ” ).

8 ... S e ei

d. § 2 2 0 (b ). 9 ... See Trans -Pec os Land & I r r i gat i on Co. v. A r

no Co- operative I

r r i gati on Co. , 1 8 0 S .W . 9 2 8 , 9 3 0 (T e x . C i v . A p p .— E l P a s o 1 9 1 5 , n o w ri t).

10 ... V anc e v. U

ps on , 64 Tex. 266, 1885 W L 7171, at*2 ( 188 5) ( quot i ng W ater s v. Sti ckney , 9 4 M a s s . 1 (1 2 A l l e n 1 ), 1 8 6 6 W L4 7 9 2 , a t * 1 (1 8 6 6 )). 6 courtw as r equi r ed t o appo i n t Co dy as adm i ni st r at oroverM ar k, 7 an d i fCody h a d fi l e d a n a p p l i c a ti o n to b e a p p o i n te d a s a d m i n is t r a t o r , th e p ro b a te c o u rt
w oul d hav e had t o r em ove M ar k a nd a ppoi ntCody. 8 Th e pr obate courtnot ed t hatt he r ul e on pr i or i t y ofappoi nt m entw as “w r i t t en i n st one” and st at ed t hat i t w o u l d n o t h a v e a p p o i n te d M a rki n s te a d o f C o d yi f n o t fo r M a rk ’s
m i s re p re s e n ta ti o n to th e c o u rt th a t C o d y d i d n o t w i s h to s e rv e a n d w i s h e d M a rk t o do so. The t r i al courtequat ed t hi s m i sr epr esent at i on w i t h “com [ i ng] cl ose to fra u d .” A co urtoft hi s st at e h ast he i nhe r entpow ert o pr eventf r aud be i ng p e rpe tr a ted u p o n i t. 9 Furt her m or e, a pr obate courthas t he pow er“‘ t o cor r ect e rro rs a ri s i n g o u t o f fra u d o r m i s ta k e i n i ts o w n d e c re e s .’” 10A nd i n Fortso n v. A lfo rd, th e S u p rem e C o u rto f T e x a s s tate d tha t
w her e a pr obate court has com m i t t ed an er r or i n i ts deci si ons, or der s orj udgm ent s, orw her e t he cou rtha s bee n i m pos ed upon and i n d u c e d t o a c t b y t h e d e c e i t o r f r a u d o f a p a rt y , u p o n b i l l of11 ... 6 2 T e x . 5 7 6 , 1 8 8 4 W L8 9 6 7 , a t * 3 (1 8 8 4 ). 12 ... S ee Cof

er, 7 5 4 S . W . 2 d a t124; s ee al soN w. Nat ’

l Cas. Co. v. D o u c e tte , 8 1 7 S .W .2 d 3 9 6 , 3 9 7

– 9 8 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 1 9 9 1 , w r it den i ed) ( not i ng t hatt r i al cou rt had r em ove d adm i ni st r at r i x bec aus e of herf r aud u p o n th e c o u rt).

13 ... Tex. Pr ob. C ode A nn. § 24 5 ( V er non S upp . 20 08 ) ( “W hen a per sonal r e pr e s e nt a t i ve ne gl e c t s t o pe r f or m a r e qu i r e d du t y or i f a per sonal r e p r e s e n t a t iv eis r e m o v e d f o rc a u s e , t h e p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t iv e . . . [ is ] lia b le f or : . . . r easonabl e at t or ney’ s f ees i ncur r ed i n rem ovi ng t he per sonal r epr es e n t a t i v e o ri n o b t a i n i n g c o m p l i a n c e r e g a r d i n g a n ys t a t u t o r yd u t yt he p e rs o n a l re p re s e n ta ti v e h a s n e g l e c te d .” ). 7 r evi ew , d ul y pres ent ed by a pa rt y a ti nt er es t , t he cou rtha s t he p o w e r to c o rre c t th e e rro r, a n d a n n u l a l l s u c h a c ts a s w e re pr ocu r ed by f r aud . 11 Thus , co urt s ar e n otco ns t r ai ned t o onl y r em ove an ad m i ni st r at oron t he gr oun ds setoutby stat ut e, butm ay, t hr oug h t hei ri nher entpow er , cor r ect e rr o rs i n d u c e d b yfr a u d o r de c e i t. B e c a u se a tri a l co u rth a s th e p o w e r t o r em ovean ad m i ni st r at orw he n t he ad m i ni st r at orobt ai ned t hatpos i t i on by
m aki ng a m i sr epr esent at i on t o orcom m i t t i ng f r aud on t he court , w e hol d t hat th e tri a l c o u rt d i d n o t e r rb yre m o v i n g M a rka s a d m i n i s tra to r. 12W e o v e r r u le M ar k’ s second i ssue. I n M ar k’ s t hi r d i ss ue, he ar gue s t hatt he pr oba t e c ourtha d no basi s f or as se ssi ng a t t or ney ’ s f ee s aga i ns thi m . Sec t i on 245 m ak esan ad m i ni st r at or l i abl e f orat t orne y’sf ee s i ncu r r ed i n r em ovi ng t he adm i ni st r at ori ft he adm i ni st r at ori s r em oved forcause. 13 T h a t s e c ti o n a l s o a l l o w s f o r th e re c o v e ry14 ... Id. 15 ... I n re E state o f Hawki ns , 1 8 7 S .W .3 d 1 8 2 , 1 8 4

– 8 5 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 6 , n o p e t.).

16 ... Id. a t185.
17 ... K n eb el v. Cap ita l Na t ’l Ba n kinA us tin , 5 18 S. W . 2d 795, 804 ( Tex. 1 9 7 5 ).

18 ... Co mp a reT e x . P ro b . C o d e A n n . § 2 4 5 , with , e. g. , Tex. Educ . Code A nn. § 21. 154 ( V er non 200 6) ( st at i ng t hat t ea che rem pl oye d und erco nt i nui ng contr act i s ent i t l ed t o conti nue i n a posi t i on unt i l t eacheri s, am ong ot hert hi ngs, 8 ofatt or ney ’ s f ee s i ncu r r ed i n obt ai ni ng t he adm i ni st r at or ’ s co m pl i anc e w i t h a st at ut or y du t y heha s neg l ec t ed. 14 M ar k ar gues t hat t her e w as no ev i d e n ce t hathe w asr em ove d f orca us e o rt hathe ne gl ec t ed t o pe r f orm a ny dut y a nd t h a tt h e r e w a s n o o t h e rle g a l b a s is f o ra w a r d in g a t t o r n e y ’s f e e s a g a in s th im . T h e q u e s t io n o fw h e t h e ra p a rt yis e n t it le d t o re c o v e ra t t o r n e y ’s f e e s is a q ues t i on ofl aw , w hi ch w e r evi ew de nov o. 15 W e w i l l u p h o l d a tri a l c o u rt’s
c o n c l u s i o n o f l a w “ i f th e j u d g m e n t c a n b e s u s ta i n e d o n a n yl e g a l th e o ry s u p p o rte d b yth e e v i d e n c e .” 16 W e have f oun d no case l a w a d d res si ng t he pr opr i et y ofat t or ney’ s f ees i n th e re m o v a l o f a n a d m i n i s tra to r u n d e r fa c ts s i m i l a r to th i s c a s e . W e r ec og ni z e t hats t at ut espr ovi di ng f ort he r ec ove r y ofatt or ney ’ s f ee s m us tbe st r i ct l y c ons t r ued . 17B u ts e c t io n 2 4 5 d o e s n o ts p e c i f y“ c a u s e ” t o m e a n o n ly t he gr ou nd s l i s t e d i n s e c t i on 222, 18and sec t i on 22 2 doe s notex pr es sl y de f i ned i s c h a rg e d fo r g o o d c a u s e “ a s d e fi n e d b y ” s u b s e q u e n t s e c ti o n o f c o d e ); see

al so Tex. A l co. Bev. Code Ann. § 102. 71 ( V er non 2007) ( de f i ni ng “ good ca us e”f or pur pos es of su bch apt er ) ; Tex. I ns . Code Ann. § 1551 . 003 ( V er non 2 0 0 9 ) (d e fi n i n g “ g o o d c a u s e ” fo r p u rp o s e s o f c h a p te r).

19 ... Te x. Pr ob . Cod e Ann . § 22 2. 20 ... See F

i l l i on v. O sb or

ne , 585 S . W . 2d 842, 845 ( Tex. Ci v. A pp. — H oust on [ 1stD i st . ] 19 79 , no w r i t ) ( st at i ng t hatt her e m ustbe evi dence pr es ent ed t o e nab l e c ourtt o det er m i ne w hat cos t s w er e i ncu r r ed i n obt ai ni ng o rd e r o f re m o v a l ). 9 th e g ro u n d s it p ro v i d e s f o r re m o v a l a s “ c a u s e .” 19The r ec or d s how s t hatCody h a d a s ta tu to ryri g h t to b e a p p o i n te d a d m i n i s tra to r a n d th a t th e p ro b a te c o u rt
w oul d neverhave appo i nt ed M ar k as adm i n i strat ori fhe had no tm ade a
m i sr epr es ent at i on t o t he cou rtt hatw ent“ r i ghtup t o t he edg e”off r aud . C ody’ s at t or ney gave tes t i m ony as t o t he r easonabl eness oft he f ees i ncur r ed i n br i ngi ng t he ac t i on t o r em ove M ar k, an d M ar k d oesnotch al l eng e t he suf f i ci ency of t hatevi dence. 20 Beca us e t he pr oba t e courthad caus e t o r em ove M a r ka n d e v id e n c e b e f o r e ito n w h ic h t o b a s e it s a w a r d , w e c a n n o ts a yt h a tit
er r ed by aw ar di ng at t or ney’ s f ees. Fu rt he r m or e , c ou r t s o fa pp e a l s h a veh e l d t ha tu nd e rs e c t i on 245,
a ttorn e y ’s fee s a re a ss e ss e d a g a in st a p e rso n a l rep res e n tati v e o f an es tate
w hen t he r epr es ent at i ve i s r em ove d f orca us e o ri n a n a ct i on t o obt ai n t he
r epr es ent at i ve’ s com pl i anc e w i t h a st at ut or y du t y be ca us e i tw oul d be i neq ui t abl e t o pe nal i z e t he es t at e f ort he neg l i gen torw r ongf ul co nduc toft he21 ... See E state o f

Hawki ns , 1 8 7 S .W .3 d a t 1 8 5 (“T h e s e c o s ts a re appr opr i at e asses sm ent s agai nstt he r epr esent at i ve w hen she negl ect s her dut i es , asopposed t o pe nal i z i ng t he es t at e, be ca us e t he r epr es ent at i ve hol ds th e p ro p e rtyi n te re s ts o f th e e s ta te fo r o th e rs i n th i s c a p a c i ty .” ); Bar nettv. Ba rne tt, 9 8 5 S .W .2 d 5 2 0 , 5 3 4 (T e x . A p p .— H o u sto n [ 1 st D i st.] 1 9 9 8 ) (“C o sts and at t or ney’ s f ees ar e asses sed ag ai nstt he per sonal r epr esent at i ve ofan es t at e bec auseoft he i neq ui t i esi nhe r enti n pe nal i z i ng t he es t at e w hen t he re p re s e n ta ti v en e g l e c ts h i s o r h e r d u ty .” ), rev’ d i n part on other

groundsby , 67 S .W .3 d 1 0 7 (T e x . 2 0 0 1 ). 10 r epr esent at i ve. 21 O u r h o l d i n g fo l l o w s th a t p o l i c y . W e o v e rru l e M a rk ’s th i rd i ssue. H a v i n g o v e rru l e d M a rk ’s t h r e e i s s u e s , w e a ffir m th e p ro b a te c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t.

L E E AN N D AUP HI NOT J U S T I C E PA N EL: CA YC E, C. J. ; D A U PH I N O T and W A LKER, JJ. DEL I VERE D: Apr i l 2, 2009